What I like is how the complaints in the comments section, that the author didn't differentiate between DERP brand X and DERP brand Y, but rather lumped them both together under the general heading of DERP.

Because this shiat can be hilarious. Although I must say it was a lot more fun back when Hovind was still a free man since his dickwad son only talks science when nobody is around to challenge him and resorts to obscure and circular philosophical arguments when confronted with someone who actually knows what they are talking about.

I remember flipping through a Creationist book that claimed a pic of something that looked like a tree stem in a cliff face under a tree was proof of sudden flooding creating layers of sedimentary rock.

It was a freakin' tap root digging down through sandstone. They can do that, and probably was somewhat responsible for the cliff cracking away to reveal the tap root. I came to that conclusion from the pic, and wanted to burn the book after reading the caption. Alas, I sold it for $20.

Flappyhead:Ah yes irreducable complexity, a claim so genuine they wouldn't even defend it under oath during Kitzmiller v Dover. Oh, and then it got creamed by Kenneth Miller, PhD. and practicing Catholic.

Less than 10 pct of the Christians in the world believe that the Bible must be literally true. The VAST majority of them live in North America. .

The other 90 pct seem to coexist with evolution just fine, although there are various levels of discomfort.

ModernLuddite:ANY CONCEPT OF THE WORLD BASED ON EXPERIENTIAL KNOWLEDGE AND VERIFIABLE HYPOTHESIS IS A LIBERAL LIE

Actually, a certain famous poster here actually made that argument to me. He kept ranting that science was invalid so long as it discounted the supernatural in it's explanations.

When I asked how we were suppose to insert such things into the theory, when ID and religious folks will never give any measurable or quantifiable evidence, or even evidence to clearly divide supernatural from nature, he rejected my request. Why? Because I hadn't proved the material nature of the universe, and thus sticking to material arguments was wrong.

I've actually had some experience with tje religious right, and it is scary. When I was a kid, my parents, who are educated and intelligent joined a pretty crazy church. My parent's issue was that they were 100% against abortion, so they joined a place that addressed that without anticipating all the rest of the derp that would come with it.

Anyway 6-year-old me comes home from Sunday school with a pamphlet saying that humans and dinosaurs coexisted. I remember hoping that was true because it would be awesome, but it didn't match what I had learned on school so I went to my dad for clarification.

Let's just say we never went back to that church again. My parents are still religious, and I don't press it because it makes them happy. Also, they are the "good" kind who try to help their community rather than spewing BS.

Also Bush II was the last straw for their support for the right. They both switched their registration to Democrat in 2004.

None of the things listed in the article are referenced in The Bible.False comparison is false.Who are these "creationists" anyway? I saw tons of accusations yet no names to go with.You'd think by 2012, the straw man argument would be out of usage, yet, there it is.Ah well, your bias will lead you if you let it.

xant:The real question is this: Are we evolving toward having more or fewer fundamentalist derpwads. Is derp an adaptive advantage?

I think derp is a trait that can actually be beneficial in certain amounts (making it easier to form a community, and avoid existential angst), but if it's had in too great of quantities, it will fark your shiat up. You know, kind of like how having one sickle-cell anemia gene makes you resistant to malaria, but having two means you're royally farked.

1. Solar Fusion is a lie. Seriously. This one was in print in the first edition of Astronomy and the Bible, and I think ICR might still run with it from time to time. The idea is that the light and head from the Sun is actually due to gravitational collapse, and that the sun is actually shrinking at a significant rate. The Sun couldn't possibly have been doing this for billions of years, so the universe is actually 6000 years old. This idea was put forward as a solution to the "solar neutrino problem", where scientists weren't measuring the expected level of neutrinos from the sun.

Interestingly enough, very few people still run with this claim since the solar neutrino problem was solved, but I distinctly remember some people thinking it was a big deal when I was a kid.

2. Human population grows geometrically, so the earth can't be millions of years old because there would be too many people if it was. This claim is abysmally stupid for obvious reasons, but I have met people who strenuously argued this one, and one discussion that I'm remembering actually went on for some time when people actually tried to use graphs of populations in ancient China to demonstrate that the global population of humans actually remained stagnant for a while.

3. The "Vapor Canopy". This is the idea that before Noah's flood, there was a gigantic "canopy" of water vapor, clouds, ice, or whatever in the vicinity of the upper atmosphere. This canopy supposedly blocked out UV the UV part of the spectrum (preventing cancer, aging, etc.), caused the atmospheric pressure to be much higher (contributing to animal and human gigantism,) and causing the entire surface of the earth to have a tropical climate. When God wanted to flood the Earth, he disrupted the canopy causing it to rain for 40 days and 40 nights. The main difficulties with this theory are that the math doesn't work out at all, and that there's no evidence for it.

The author of this article may have a cursory knowledge of modern "scientific creationist" claims, but if you're going to go for a list of the "Top 10 most absurd claims," you really need to dig a little deeper. I am disappoint.

As for atheists: STFU, also. People believe things, let them believe what they want.You are not better for your supposed enlightenment in the way you treat and your attitude toward the religious.You are giving 'tolerance' a bad name.

In fact you are just as bad, if not worse, than most fundamentalists.

And btw: whenTF are you gonna start making 'Mohammed on a dinosaur' comments?What's wrong? Chickenshiat?

Kurmudgeon:None of the things listed in the article are referenced in The Bible.False comparison is false.Who are these "creationists" anyway? I saw tons of accusations yet no names to go with.You'd think by 2012, the straw man argument would be out of usage, yet, there it is.Ah well, your bias will lead you if you let it.

Haha, so what you're going with is that the Bible is final determination of your beliefs? I've got real bad news for you.... You might want to read it.

As for atheists: STFU, also. People believe things, let them believe what they want.You are not better for your supposed enlightenment in the way you treat and your attitude toward the religious.You are giving 'tolerance' a bad name.

In fact you are just as bad, if not worse, than most fundamentalists.

And btw: whenTF are you gonna start making 'Mohammed on a dinosaur' comments?What's wrong? Chickenshiat?

So both sides are bad, vote religious? Cuz thats what it sounds like.

Except its not true. One side has myths and fairy tales, the other has facts, science, and logic.

No one is going to tell you what to believe, but the facts will remain the facts, regardless.

Actually I'm wrong, religious people often tell you what to believe. It's why they're usually so insufferable.

Because this shiat can be hilarious. Although I must say it was a lot more fun back when Hovind was still a free man since his dickwad son only talks science when nobody is around to challenge him and resorts to obscure and circular philosophical arguments when confronted with someone who actually knows what they are talking about.

This thread will probably be pretty quiet. We wore ourselves out bashing Charlie Brown earlier.

Martian_Astronomer:3. The "Vapor Canopy". This is the idea that before Noah's flood, there was a gigantic "canopy" of water vapor, clouds, ice, or whatever in the vicinity of the upper atmosphere. This canopy supposedly blocked out UV the UV part of the spectrum (preventing cancer, aging, etc.), caused the atmospheric pressure to be much higher (contributing to animal and human gigantism,) and causing the entire surface of the earth to have a tropical climate. When God wanted to flood the Earth, he disrupted the canopy causing it to rain for 40 days and 40 nights. The main difficulties with this theory are that the math doesn't work out at all, and that there's no evidence for it.

Now that's an interesting concoction. It may be a crock of shiat, but I have to admit it sounds pretty cool and even semi-logical.

If there is a God or Creator, he did an extremely bad job of creating.

I, a lowly human being, can think of major improvements for living things, such as

-instantaneous adaptation for any situation, such as growing wings to escape a landbound predator, developing gills in case of water landing or flash flood, body systems that can be actually controlled, shut down, and regulated consciously by the creature-remodel the male reproductive system so that you don't pee and spooge from the same opening-being able to consciously decide whether or not to hold onto excess nutrition as fat, as well as metabolize fat before demanding actual food-fix all of the genetic malfunctions that cause cancer, sickle-cell anemia, baldness, etc

And boom, a lot of problems solved.

/of course, in the beginning everything was perfect, until God threw a hissy fit so big he cursed all of creation to be farked up, because he put something he didn't want Adam and Eve touching right in the middle of the garden with no fence or anything, and he sucked at keeping an eye out for his only nemesis, Lucifer//sounds like this God fellow really isn't all-seeing, all-knowing, or all-loving

Kurmudgeon:None of the things listed in the article are referenced in The Bible.False comparison is false.Who are these "creationists" anyway? I saw tons of accusations yet no names to go with.You'd think by 2012, the straw man argument would be out of usage, yet, there it is.Ah well, your bias will lead you if you let it.

These are the creationists.I took this at the Creation Museum near the Cincinnati Airport. Obviously there's enough of these people to support a whole museum. This one is my personal favorite.I've got plenty more where that came from, too.

douchebag/hater:And btw: whenTF are you gonna start making 'Mohammed on a dinosaur' comments?What's wrong? Chickenshiat?

If we made fun of Mohammed then christians would end up agreeing with us. Where is the fun in that.

In all seriousness, if you weren't mentally challenged you would realize that the majority of religious people that post on fark are christian and not Muslim. It is the same reason you find more viruses for windows and not macs. More people use windows. Going for the larger audience here.

Anyone: "what was God doing before creation?"St. Augustine: "God was preparing Hell for people who ask such questions."

But really, if you're going to go with "The God of the Gaps," why not ask why "If life on Earth was so complicated that it could not have sprung up without a greater being creating it, then what created God, whom I assume is a bit more complex? Follow through with it.